As pacientes que tiveram câncer de mama sentem-se seguras em serem seguidas sem exames complementares?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The discussion about the best way to perform the follow-up of women with breast cancer still persists and there is no consensus on best practice.International guidelines, based on randomized clinical trials suggests that periodic physical examinations and annual mammograms are sufficient and other exams that enable early detection of metastases have no impact on survival of these women.However, the opinion of the women about a new model of follow up was not accessed yet.Objectives: Evaluate the opinion of women who were in follow up for breast cancer with bone scans, chest X-rays and abdominal echograpy about the interruption of these exams.Subjects and methods: During the period from March 2007 until June 2008 patients monitored for breast cancer were subjected to a questionnaire regarding their opinion about the discontinuation of supplementary follow-up exams, these patients were necessarily out of treatment with chemotherapy or radiotherapy, but women who were on hormonal adjuvant treatment were included.We excluded patients with metastatic disease.Results: 116 patients were submitted to the questionnaire.The majority of interviewed women said that they would feel insecure if stopped performing the supplementary exams (84%).The variables correlated with a higher Odds Ratio (OR) for insecurity were: patients with a perception of their disease as initial (OR=7.0),patients younger than 50 yearsold (OR = 4.01), with higher educational level (OR = 3.45) and shorter follow-up (OR=2.83).Conclusions: The majority of interviewed patients are insecure about the possibility of suspending the current follow up with supplementary exams. Publicação 30The insecurity is more pronounced in women with a self perception of early disease, younger ones with higher educational level and shorter follow up time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".